A person who fires rockets at mud-built residential homes intending to kill the occupants has committed a crime against humanity and is answerable to a charge of murder - Art 7 Statute of Rome mentioned in my OP.

Your assuming again , you have no proof who was killed in those huts and again the Air Force was directed to target those homes by Afghan and coalition ground forces . The pilots did not fly in and say hey there are civilians lets bomb them

Quote:

Any such invitation to a pilot should be refused because acceptance makes him liable to prosecution at the ICC.

What a silly statement - LOLFor all the pilots knew they were directed to hit an enemy target - Now if you can tell me that the pilots were told to hit a target filled with civilians then you are correct

Actually, the war crime there would be intentionally placing civilians in danger by locating military targets amongst said population

I disagree.

Article 51, Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977:

"7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."

Quote:

A person who fires rockets at mud-built residential homes intending to kill the occupants has committed a crime against humanity

Not in all circumstances, the most obvious of which would be if there are opposing forces occupying the structure and/or are using it for military purposes ...

Quote:

Carp is seeking to excuse the pilots' actions on the basis ...

Again, that's you applying your interpretation onto what Carp said. *He* never said the Governor ordered war crimes.

I see , so let the Taliban go into villages and shoot civilians and police at will , humm okay but wait thats what they were doing before the bombings . So stopping the bombing does nothing in fact the bombing follows the Taliban atrocities were they go bombs follow

Quote:

Karzai called in our bombers. Let him kill his own people with his own bombs.

That would be correct - Now even Karzai said himself the real solution is the Afghan army becomes strong enough to defend itself . I don't know why its taking so long to get up to size and strength by now ? ? But once that happens the US can get out of there

the war crime there would be intentionally placing civilians in danger by locating military targets amongst said population

I disagree.

Article 51, Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977: "7. The presence or movements of the civilian population

I'm aware of the provision but your statement about its effect is incorrect. The Geneva Conventions operate against states not individuals. The Statute of Rome which is operational against individuals incorporates certain of the Geneva provisions but not the one you're citing. That's excluded because its subordinate to the overriding prohibition against attacks on civilians in all circumstances.

Other reason why the ICC can't act on carp's suggestion is that the Statute of Rome requires it to give way to the Afghan authorities under the principle of 'complemetarity'. Furthermore, that in any case it's a load of baloney traceable to an uncorroborated inadmissible hearsay statement of Chuck Marsh. Even if the court had jurisdiction, which it doesn't, I think it would need something a bit more substantial than what Chuck Marsh makes up for gullible consumers of the US media.

Quote:

Quote:

A person who fires rockets at mud-built residential homes intending to kill the occupants has committed a crime against humanity

Not in all circumstances

I'm talking about the circumstances of the case - Bala Baluk where 147 civilians including women and children were killed and others maimed in private homes - which ones are you talking about?

Quote:

the most obvious of which would be if there are opposing forces occupying the structure and/or are using it for military purposes

No, that's contradicted by the Statute of Rome, Art 8.

Quote:

Again, that's you applying your interpretation onto what Carp said. *He* never said the Governor ordered war crimes.

Well, obviously one has to join up his allegation, unsupported though it is, that the Air Force was acting on directions of the "governor" with what those directions were namely to bomb residential homes which happens to be a war crime. The pilots are unswerable for their actions whether they acted on invitation or otherwise - Statute of Rome Art 8(2)(a)(i):

"wilful killing"

and 8(2)(b(ii):

"intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities"

as well as 8(2)(b)(iv):

"intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians..."

Now we all know that carp is trying to wriggle out of the fact that US pilots are answerable for their actions in Afghanistan before the ICC. His argument that they were under orders or directed by Afghan officials isn't good enough - it's never been a defence to murder to say "someone else is also guilty".

Well, obviously one has to join up his allegation, unsupported though it is, that the Air Force was acting on directions of the "governor" with what those directions were namely to bomb residential homes which happens to be a war crime. The pilots are unswerable for their actions whether they acted on invitation or otherwise - Statute of Rome Art 8(2)(a)(i):

1st - Again I did not say the governor ordered war crimes - putting words in people mouths is shameful

2nd - The governor ordered Afghan troops and coalition forces into the villages - YOUR the one that assuming yet again that he ordered them to bomb houses

Your right

Quote:

"wilful killing"

Guilty Taliban

Quote:

"intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities"

Guilty Taliban leaders

Quote:

"intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians..."

Guilty Taliban - Keep in mind that they went into the village and started shooting at civilians and the police

Also keep in mind that the Pilots were directed to those targets which Afghan forces were receiving fire from - All they knew was those targets were Taliban

The more opinions, the better. Nobody I know has said otherwise. Nobody I know is necessarily disputing the issue raised, either. What I will always rail against, however, is what I read as predictable bias. If I see it, I call it. If you see it in a different light, that's your bidness. How I see it is my bidness. And if that's idiotic in your book, so be it. Somehow, I will survive the shame of it all.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.